New Discussion: What's an internet sub for?

[MMI]

Thank-you, Tom:

"What I'm trying to say is that I don't really get it. Even after reading the posts made here, I'm still none the wiser what it's for." I think I am a bit wiser now. Online is yet another way to develop a relationship, whether it blossom or wither in time. If it withers, it was likely to have done so in real life too. Just like any other relationship it will stand or fall on its own merits. I accept that.

But Tom made another point, only once referred to by anyone else (Warbaby), and then only in passing: the sex. (OK, I think for Sir Russell, sex is so obvious, it's a given!) This is a BDSM site, so doesn't sex come into it? Control <--> sex <--> submission.

For Tom, sex is fundamental and I can see that too. This was an unformed thought that partly prompted my original post - if the sex isn't real, then it's just masturbation: if the control isn't real, then there isn't really any true submission. For people like Tom, then, an online sub can never be ideal.

Sir Russell disagrees. Or rather, he differs from Tom, and disagrees with me. He is happy with RL and OL. He says his OL control is real, and I infer the sex is satisfactory too. (Is there a delicate way to say that? I mean no offence.) And this is achieved by hard vetting so that only suitable subs who are totally honest and whom he trusts are accepted.

I think I am coming to the view that OL relationships can be good - wonderful even - but are always less than RL Ceegee, for example, will fulfil her relationship when she at last reaches Oz. Sbbe and cadence use OL to fill gaps in RL (I hope I understood that right).

But OL does something that RL doesn't do - at least, not nearly so easily. It allows people to gain experiences denied to them elsewhere. There's no way, for example that I can have a real life BDSM experience, but I can look for it here. Thus, like sbbe and cadence, I have a gap in my real life that OL may satisfy, and, clearly, that is what an online sub is for.

[Warbaby1943]

Thank-you, Tom:

"What I'm trying to say is that I don't really get it. Even after reading the posts made here, I'm still none the wiser what it's for." I think I am a bit wiser now. Online is yet another way to develop a relationship, whether it blossom or wither in time. If it withers, it was likely to have done so in real life too. Just like any other relationship it will stand or fall on its own merits. I accept that.

But Tom made another point, only once referred to by anyone else (Warbaby), and then only in passing: the sex. (OK, I think for Sir Russell, sex is so obvious, it's a given!) This is a BDSM site, so doesn't sex come into it? Control <--> sex <--> submission.

For Tom, sex is fundamental and I can see that too. This was an unformed thought that partly prompted my original post - if the sex isn't real, then it's just masturbation: if the control isn't real, then there isn't really any true submission. For people like Tom, then, an online sub can never be ideal.

Sir Russell disagrees. Or rather, he differs from Tom, and disagrees with me. He is happy with RL and OL. He says his OL control is real, and I infer the sex is satisfactory too. (Is there a delicate way to say that? I mean no offence.) And this is achieved by hard vetting so that only suitable subs who are totally honest and whom he trusts are accepted.

I think I am coming to the view that OL relationships can be good - wonderful even - but are always less than RL Ceegee, for example, will fulfil her relationship when she at last reaches Oz. Sbbe and cadence use OL to fill gaps in RL (I hope I understood that right).

But OL does something that RL doesn't do - at least, not nearly so easily. It allows people to gain experiences denied to them elsewhere. There's no way, for example that I can have a real life BDSM experience, but I can look for it here. Thus, like sbbe and cadence, I have a gap in my real life that OL may satisfy, and, clearly, that is what an online sub is for.

For some, and I don't think I am alone, BDSM does not have to involve sex. It can be more about submission and control then sex. If it s all about sex for some then that is all well and good for them. It doesn't make it wrong for others where no actual sex is involved. We are all different remember.

Some still don't seem to get the concept that on line is still happening in your real life. Your not dreaming it and looking at it from afar, you are living it. Every single minute of it is real. The emotions, the feelings, the submissions, the control, and especially the love are all very real and happening in real life.

You asked for reasons for on line relationships. I and others have tried to point out some. Though you may not agree with the reasons given, they are valid to those offering them.

[TomOfSweden]

BDSM does not have to involve sex. It can be more about submission and control then sex. If it s all about sex for some then that is all well and good for them.

Now it's down to semantics. I will argue that BDSM is always and only about sex. It may just be that I have a wider definition of sex. It can be sex even though private parts aren't deposited into fleshy cavities. Sex for me happens first and fore most in the head. I do think that a slave submitting is in every way a sexual act, on- or off-line.

My problem is the reciept. How do I know the communication is working. It's hard enough even with two people in the same room. I had comunication issues with my ex-wife even after six and a half years of marriage. It may be that I have some serious inadequesies in comunication....but yeah...you know... to continue using the expression.... Maybe I'm not unique.

Me personally, over the net I tend to project a lot. Fill in the blanks with wishfull thinking. Since I know I have this tendancy, I fight it. But I often notice it sneaking in.

Comunication is always extremly hard in any setting. Why make it any more difficult?